D-day approaches for Crean

February 15 2003

The Labor leader would do better to stop point-scoring and make for the higher ground, writes Shaun Carney.

Simon Crean's moment of truth is at hand. Opportunities like the one that offers itself now - courtesy of Australia's involvement in the coming assault on Iraq - come along at best two or three times in a politician's lifetime.

After 15 months as Labor leader, Crean has failed to silence the doubters and disarm the would-be assassins in his caucus. More broadly, he has not established a favourable image with a substantial proportion of the electorate.

The easy analysis of this situation is to write Crean off, to declare him a walking corpse, and this has been done in the media many times already. Initially, the dismissals of Crean were of the Clayton's variety: he would have been knocked off by now if anyone better was available.

When that view wore thin - after all, that could be said of any political leader at any time - the vogue was then to postpone his dismissal until after a looming event: in this case, next month's New South Wales election.

As well as confirming Sydney as the geographical source of much of the white-anting, this view seeks to keep Crean on a short leash, with a little bit of time - but not quite enough - to turn around his fortunes.");document.write("

advertisement

");
}
}
// -->

The talk of Crean being overthrown during the autumn is hot air, promoted by a handful of Labor MPs more interested in portraying themselves as being powerful than in doing the spadework required of an opposition.

Crean does have genuine problems. If by the end of this year the Labor Party's position isn't, in the words of one of its leading figures, "more buoyant", then all hell could break loose within the party.

Even a few of those making supportive noises now will, when pressed, acknowledge that their commitment to Crean is not open-ended. Of course, this says as much about their political reliability as it does about any weaknesses in their leader's performance.

But Crean can, if he meets the complex challenges posed by the war on Iraq, overcome these problems and entrench himself in the leadership.

It won't be easy.

With Australian men and women now apparently only weeks away from risking their lives in and around Baghdad, speculating on whether there is any electoral advantage - that is, votes at the ballot box - in the various possible outcomes of the conflict seems a fraught and distasteful task.

Indeed, who can say how voting intentions would be changed? The dimensions and nature of the conflict, and how much of it we actually get to see, could lead public opinion in any direction.

In any event, no politician can afford to be seen to be chasing votes in the next couple of months.

In Crean's case, that's not what he needs to do anyway; it's his standing on his own side of politics that is his most immediate concern. You don't need to read many letters pages in the newspapers, or listen to much talkback or attend many suburban backyard barbecues to figure out that a lot of Labor supporters are disillusioned with their party.

A fair degree of this is a flow-on from the frustrations created by the strategy pursued by Kim Beazley between 1998 and 2001, where too much was taken for granted and Labor did not work hard enough at sharpening and spreading its message. However, some of it is down to Crean's personal style, which is often narrow and prosecutorial.

It's sometimes overlooked that Crean has a law degree and that a lot of his early professional life in the union movement was based on picking holes in employers' arguments during disputes and negotiations.

His skills have served him well enough but the circumstances created by Iraq require other capacities. Australians right now are looking as never before for moral leadership, for an enunciation of principles, for a declaration of the nation's mission.

Pointing up hypocrisy or mendacity on his opponent's part and then ramming it home, which is what he has done with some success with his attack on the Prime Minister for his convoluted explanation of Australia's pre-deployment to Iraq, has been Crean's trademark.

Now Crean has to find a more dexterous style. For example, he could have insulated himself against the criticisms of United States ambassador Tom Schieffer by stressing in his speech to Parliament last week his affection for the US, his support for the alliance and his lack of a gripe with George Bush. Instead, he followed his natural instincts and focused on going after John Howard. It was after that that Schieffer publicly attacked Crean.

None of this is to excuse Schieffer, whose conduct really has only two possible explanations. One is that he knew what he was doing and was using the media to try to shut down domestic debate and silence any public criticism, direct and indirect, of American policy, even if that meant interfering quite visibly in the internal politics of Australia's biggest political party.

The alternative explanation is that Schieffer has not the faintest notion of how a diplomat is supposed to act. Either way, it is a massive show of arrogance by the Americans.

As the discussion of the nation's membership of Bush's "coalition of the willing" rages, Crean is attracting the media time and community attention that an opposition leader could normally expect to get only during an election campaign.

In other words, large numbers of voters who normally would not pay any attention to public affairs are watching and listening.

Crean's most pressing difficulties - the ones that he must deal with - are related to his own party and the natural Labor constituency. More than anything, it is that constituency he needs to win over, and soon. Crean has, so far, associated himself with the United Nations and has constantly said that he supports peace, which would appear to be an argument for continued containment of Saddam Hussein. But if the UN Security Council decides to co-ordinate a military offensive against Iraq - and at this stage this seems only a slim possibility - Crean will have to get off the peace wagon and lock into the war.

A skilled politician comfortable with talking about higher principles rather than process, and who can deliver a complex argument in a relaxed way, could get away with this. It's not beyond Crean, but it would be a stretch.

A more probable scenario, a "coalition of the willing" assault with no Security Council sanction, would allow Crean to continue to bang the peace drum. It's the sort of unifying message for his own side that Crean desperately needs. If he can convince them he's got the goods, he at least has a shot come the next election.